Estrategias para aplicar el nuevo Reglamento Sanitario Internacional en los países federales
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The International Health Regulations (IHR), the principal legal instrument guiding the international management of public health emergencies, have recently undergone an extensive revision process. The revised regulations, referred to as the IHR (2005), were unanimously approved in May 2005 by all Member States of the World Health Assembly (WHA) and came into effect on 15 June 2007. The IHR (2005) reflect a modernization of the international community's approach to public health and an acknowledgement of the importance of establishing an effective international strategy to manage emergencies that threaten global health security. The success of the IHR as a new approach to combating such threats will ultimately be determined by the ability of countries to live up to the obligations they assumed in approving the new international strategy. However, doing so may be particularly challenging for decentralized countries, specifically those with federal systems of government. Although the IHR (2005) are the product of an agreement among national governments, they cover a wide range of matters, some of which may not fall fully under the constitutional jurisdiction of the national government within many federations. This tension between the separation of powers within federal systems of government and the requirements of an evolving global public health governance regime may undermine national efforts towards compliance and could ultimately jeopardize the regime's success. We hosted a workshop to examine how federal countries could address some of the challenges they may face in implementing the IHR (2005). We present here a series of recommendations, synthesized from the workshop proceedings, on strategies that these countries might pursue to improve their ability to comply with the revised IHR.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".